BSBI Recorder www.bsbi.org.uk Spring 2011

The sundew Drosera ×obovata (yellow dots), showing the distribution of the parents D. anglica (pale blue), D. rotundifolia (dark blue), and both (red). See page 8 for a report on the hybrids project.

0

BBSSBBII RReeccoorrddeerr NNoo.. 1155 A newsletter for county recorders, referees and herbarium curators in the Botanical Society of the British Isles Spring 2011

Contents

Maps Scheme report ...... 4 The Distribution Database ...... 6 Hybrids Project progress ...... 8 Axiophyte research ...... 9 Axiophytes vs. total richness ...... 10 Trialling axiophytes on a Scottish island ...... 11 An algorithm to enumerate axiophyte richness ...... 12 Threatened project – danicus ...... 15 Status of cambrensis ...... 23 Are bumblebees robbing ? ...... 24 Meet the BSBI Lynne Farrell ...... 25 Mary Clare Sheehan ...... 26 Gerry Sharkey ...... 27 County Roundup ...... 29 Referees ...... 36

© The Botanical Society of the British Isles, 2011 Botany Department, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD Charity number 212560 in England & ; SC038675 in . www.bsbi.org.uk

1

Contacts

Chair of Records Committee David Pearman, Algiers, Feock, Truro, Cornwall, TR3 6RA 01872 863388, [email protected]

Head of Research & Development Kevin Walker, 97 Dragon Parade, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, HG1 5DG 01423 544902, [email protected]

New Journal of Botany Records Editor Mike Porter, 5 West Avenue, Wigton, Cumbria, CA7 9LG 01697 343086, [email protected]

Referees Organiser Mary Clare Sheahan, 61 Westmorland Road, Barnes, London, SW13 9RZ 020 8748 4365, [email protected]

Volunteers Officer Bob Ellis, 11 Havelock Road, Norwich, NR2 3HQ 01603 662260, [email protected]

Scottish Officer Jim McIntosh, Royal Botanic Garden, Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR 0131 2482894, [email protected]

Maps Scheme Database Quentin Groom, 1 Louis Pelserssquare, 3080 Tervuren, Belgium [email protected]

Coordinator Alex Lockton, 66 North Street, Shrewsbury, SY1 2JL 01743 343789 [email protected]

2

Summary Alex Lockton [email protected]

Our usual list of action points....

1. Make a plan for Atlas 2020. All county recorders need to have some sort of strategy for getting around their county in the next nine years, if they have not done so in the last date class. If you cannot cope, then do consider standing down. We can make you an Emeritus Recorder if you want to keep in touch and continue with your own interests. But it is far better to have a county listed as vacant than to have someone trying to do the county recorder’s job if they don’t really have the time or inclination for it. You may think there is no-one else who could do it, but it’s surprising how soon someone keen turns up.

2. Fill in a few Threatened Plants forms. This has been a huge project, welcomed by many county recorders. OK, quite a lot of work, but look at the detailed reports that Kevin has started to produce from it. Even if you’re not terribly inspired by it yourself, it is worth doing some surveys to ensure that the geographical coverage is good. (I don’t need to tell county recorders why cooperation benefits everyone – you volunteered to be part of our network, so you already know this.)

3. Set up a web page about your county. It is little work if you just want a minimal one. You don’t need to know anything clever about computers, you just need to be able to type and ideally take a digital photograph. Things to put on your web page: how to contact you, when your field meetings are, any publications you have, scans of other botanical publications about your county, where a botanical visitor could stay and what they might hope to see. Think about what the reader wants from a web page.

4. Sign up for the eNewsletter. Takes just a few seconds, and then you get a monthly email from us with any news or information that you need. When your email address changes, you just log on to the eNews web page and change it. It’s simple. If you are not already signed up, you have to contact me to get the address, as we do not publish it, in order to make life harder for spammers.

3

Maps Scheme report Alex Lockton & Quentin Groom

It is intriguing to see that the number of 10 km smarties in each date class continues to grow, reflecting the ongoing computerisation of older records from herbaria and literature. Date Class 2 seems to be doing particularly well, with 20,000 records added in the last year, which is good news because it is the weakest period for recording. It seems likely that there were actually more records in DC2 than we can see, because it was common practice to compile a recording card over long periods of time, and the records were (very naturally, but not correctly) assigned to DC3 rather than DC2 when the Atlas project was launched.

Growth in the number of Maps Scheme smarties over the last six years.

2005 2010 2011 DC0 (-1929) - 251,233 265,333 DC1 (1930-1969) 325,148 1,564,319 1,568,099 DC2 (1970-1986) 186,464 917,456 938,707 DC3 (1987-1999) 1,818,116 2,194,252 2,212,395 DC4 (2000-2009) 316,154 1,168,662 1,242,853 DC5 (2010-2019) - 1,431 18,1227

One pertinent question about the Maps Scheme is what use is it? Because we compile live data continuously a lot of erroneous records sneak in, especially for species with ambiguous names such as Trichophorum cespitosum and Rorippa islandica . There are often, therefore, duff dots on the maps. However, as we do compile data from a lot of sources, the correct records also get in and this is the only place where you can find out about them. So if you want to see where Fumaria reuteri has been recorded, for instance, there is nowhere else where you can go. A criticism of the Maps Scheme that some people make is that it is collecting data for no purpose. Well, that is not entirely unfair. Botanical recording can be fun, and many botanists see it as an enjoyable challenge rather than a necessarily purposeful scientific activity. But having said that, we have never yet come across an academic researcher who wanted us to record less. We get many requests for data, and every single one of them says they wish we could do more recording, and standardise it more. Before the Maps Scheme started, there was no ongoing programme of repeated recording. Now we have the structure of the decade-long date classes. From the table above, it looks like we could aim to get 1.5 million smarties every decade. That will amount to a very useful data set after a while. Here is a challenge for you: find someone who has the proven skill and ability to record for the Maps scheme who also thinks it is a waste of time. You need to be a good enough botanist to identify a huge range of species in the field, healthy and energetic enough to go out and do the work, skilled enough to computerise thousands of records a year, and sufficiently socially adept to be able cooperate with colleagues to help compile a national database like this. That’s an impressive range of abilities, so those who are able to contribute to the maps definitely deserve a pat on the back.

4

Summary of the Maps Scheme Database b y County and Date Class

VC DC0 DC1 DC2 DC3 DC4 DC5 64 2214 16121 8912 27438 10205 3853 1 8435 14621 13319 16303 16624 255 65 938 11131 6097 12688 3270 98 2 9002 17073 12143 24015 21604 22 66 2589 15307 21072 18314 17423 5207 3 5773 25191 30960 37151 23382 4956 67 877 18164 13015 19087 14324 6262 4 3054 16821 23137 22329 14852 2911 68 1441 11244 8007 10788 7821 2206 5 1356 11814 6306 26541 15445 3111 69 1652 12827 24534 25302 7853 2 6 5854 15353 11646 28289 17285 7055 70 1127 19090 34013 35019 12073 2 7 526 11481 6827 14018 8500 1304 71 838 5974 1478 8324 2395 0 8 643 12869 9075 19463 11089 633 72 883 10547 4261 11425 7152 1000 9 2616 24603 11456 31615 14853 431 73 1060 11359 8085 16706 5935 45 10 1616 4934 2399 3017 6761 0 74 2507 6667 4084 8866 5631 0 11 7211 15368 8716 24992 20596 4802 75 441 11775 2533 15529 1421 6 12 6869 13444 10206 18290 14559 4453 76 159 2703 3789 5227 659 52 13 1414 14345 2218 16203 19400 2534 77 294 7226 2326 13767 1479 5 14 1856 16913 3549 16670 20517 2663 78 946 4883 4313 4487 960 1 15 1467 18514 6793 21441 15604 10 79 500 2295 1228 4126 2409 560 16 1343 13298 4823 15259 12376 2667 80 1659 7866 2624 10433 4509 1451 17 4063 20801 10302 24201 20636 9328 81 2353 8059 6141 10142 7662 2414 18 1208 10551 4694 13262 10786 4863 82 317 4876 2118 6296 2027 1 19 2002 15111 7613 22542 7948 1794 83 1236 6689 2999 6695 1169 2124 20 1526 12963 4656 18155 4753 2964 84 148 2315 2002 4668 1056 0 21 1511 8795 2314 7624 7716 4207 85 2436 9230 6650 13429 1501 130 22 1626 18841 8663 24173 23792 12 86 380 4267 1599 8347 4030 114 23 1875 19102 18820 17531 3619 5 87 1139 4595 8529 9006 4474 353 24 6658 14150 18601 21298 9732 457 88 4972 15005 11981 15426 11987 38 25 1996 21689 21460 21400 19139 0 89 2711 7812 8450 11432 7062 8 26 1455 13492 14000 13729 14089 0 90 1228 10469 2872 12149 8672 44 27 2498 15616 4447 27077 18447 7576 91 998 3902 1036 5858 6157 43 28 3696 15267 4523 26935 19971 3590 92 1075 8486 2522 8512 3199 773 29 3462 17012 12055 16666 12184 5316 93 353 6816 3377 11536 9897 71 30 689 10732 13614 13077 11288 0 94 6694 7960 9237 6880 8199 1776 31 1019 6266 8927 5491 6335 2425 95 2314 11099 4002 13695 9565 1713 32 5538 12167 7317 20503 8071 256 96 1059 19335 20285 13833 8799 377 33 1150 10605 6272 18136 11093 2210 97 812 16039 7793 15978 10245 1360 34 2012 11689 9829 19944 13518 3581 98 795 16772 2822 20495 10457 4397 35 2273 6385 3051 19356 1224 2043 99 221 3213 6145 6856 994 125 36 3325 10260 7619 20496 10934 3 100 723 4870 4122 7077 7254 815 37 1449 10354 5385 22455 21823 2 101 155 9780 4729 11100 4336 7 38 2889 22046 2160 15941 2796 1226 102 185 7083 1873 9699 650 0 39 1966 16145 5456 25293 31604 3189 103 453 11040 2996 9500 8659 2004 40 10185 3573 20376 20357 20843 7662 104 1740 14572 9446 14177 15005 3889 41 1651 13600 18837 18309 10758 4239 105 767 11777 2809 10009 1918 0 42 1503 8940 5119 12446 13635 0 106 2741 13232 5771 13763 15427 2967 43 517 8185 8944 9244 2165 0 107 347 8832 3594 7301 1408 5487 44 367 10430 3082 22929 13012 0 108 7992 11400 5257 13181 7701 10 45 495 11090 10136 15067 12113 0 109 758 5956 7552 3666 3114 0 46 609 9050 5055 20303 18305 0 110 1516 16673 5761 15166 16507 0 47 356 8474 3390 15698 5163 0 111 2321 7451 2922 8512 6590 1706 48 825 9263 3436 9096 1292 0 112 2205 7727 5741 10808 3702 0 49 1939 11721 4064 19423 16373 1 113 3590 5428 3905 9500 3881 2432 50 716 8164 13712 18494 9467 2929 114 902 1651 1425 2101 2033 0 51 318 5224 2752 6187 999 0 201 706 10162 824 13297 3836 0 52 662 5985 3232 9290 7824 2571 202 377 3356 573 14510 2605 0 53 716 14209 4319 19092 1404 0 203 261 9947 178 16953 3748 14 54 1550 22862 6988 28538 3417 0 204 171 5861 214 13172 419 0 55 1110 13160 17891 12336 1883 0 205 191 5894 211 12654 83 3 56 490 14853 1778 17397 2547 2 206 2114 6332 1516 14536 19194 819 57 2764 13619 5195 17954 16275 2 207 364 5002 188 7910 265 131 58 2329 14516 3588 23435 20932 0 208 349 5444 195 12059 2176 0 59 7311 14903 5130 25276 28892 23 209 1233 8701 1995 10896 6056 354 60 1793 9830 4207 12788 16296 0 210 859 4275 1401 13581 63 0 61 504 14543 14207 15771 9307 4186 211 1135 4723 155 7318 2005 0 62 1798 16140 3307 21763 23178 1 212 899 10174 2318 15555 11899 7976 63 1603 13450 13810 18346 17560 4 213 1156 4097 310 3153 545 0

5

214 914 4918 268 5222 1320 0 228 943 6947 366 10222 179 0 215 911 4894 250 6261 1873 0 229 961 3949 576 11347 388 0 216 1181 7858 2261 10410 4386 0 230 424 5289 126 6971 124 0 217 1164 5195 400 6670 2383 0 231 739 2098 505 5624 60 3 218 875 4865 80 9071 1766 0 232 147 2800 450 8601 3974 0 219 996 3488 2507 6577 1417 0 233 455 8475 5621 13195 716 0 220 1237 5655 447 11083 558 49 234 172 4901 181 11273 1371 163 221 816 3190 912 8576 341 2 235 381 9497 487 13359 82 948 222 622 4734 361 12423 124 0 236 780 9447 4168 22903 11572 0 223 923 5099 2727 9569 139 33 237 323 5724 2661 7803 482 0 224 568 2467 171 5480 0 0 238 772 10257 8740 17432 7981 0 225 1029 5983 189 10158 750 0 239 658 11405 11555 18927 4259 237 226 424 5293 380 7673 315 0 240 226 5843 5200 12192 3505 93 227 2084 11805 300 13040 453 0

Introducing the Distribution Database Kevin Walker, Alex Lockton & Tom Humphrey

The Distribution Database (DDB) (also known, confusingly, as the Big Database) is the next step in biological recording. For ten years or more there has not been an adequate way to compile all of the BSBI’s records into one place, so we have deliberately shied away from committing ourselves to any one system. Mapmate has been a great success in allowing county recorders to collect and collate data for themselves simply, quickly and efficiently. Herbaria at Home has done the same thing for museum collections. And the Maps Scheme (aka Atlas Updating Project) has been our way of summarising all this data and putting it on display. However, none of these systems can do all that we want or compile all the data, in full detail, into one place. The DDB is our solution to that problem. The key difference between the DDB and other biological recording databases is that lots of people can work on it simultaneously over the internet. It can collate and store all the records that exist, and you – the county recorder – will then log onto it to edit, correct, delete and add to the records. It has a facility to exchange data with Mapmate, so you could download everything for your county, work on it there, and then upload it again. Or you can simply work online, viewing records and distribution maps, and running analyses and filters. In the future, recorders may not have their own databases – they will simply log on to the DDB and work on that. Even when out in the field, you will have access to all the existing records over the internet, and you could input your field records as you work, storing them in your own temporary ‘sandbox’ until you’re ready to share them with the rest of the world. One issue with the DDB is that it now makes sharing so easy that we will have to adapt to new ways of working. The traditional model of a county recorder was for someone who would hold all the data for a county. Being in sole control of the records gives you a very exclusive and proprietorial role, which can be highly motivating, but which is also very arduous. However, that role has already changed in many places. Log on to the DDB and you’ll find that there are other people collecting and managing records for your county that you don’t even know about. When you probably have more knowledge than anyone else about a subject it is tempting to dismiss others as irrelevant, but there are, for example, really knowledgeable people on Herbaria at Home discussing when Augustin Ley came to your county, what he collected and where. Then there are taxonomists collecting specimens of Bolboschoenus maritimus (or whatever) and re-determining them as something new that doesn’t even appear on the checklists yet. And there are conservationists recording in sites or planting out rare orchids without caring what the BSBI does or thinks. So the role of the county recorder has changed, and this will be a good thing when we fully adapt to it. In future they are more likely to be receiving and checking records than necessarily making most of them. The gaps we have had in recording in the past have been so huge. Many counties have had a county Flora about every 100 years and often almost no recording in between. One person cannot do a

6

modern Flora on their own – they tend to do some areas and species really well, while other areas are often not well covered. Already, county recorders in the south of England have networks of recorders who each have a full copy of the database, and that gives the helpers an incentive to undertake recording projects of their own. Our desire is to upload to the DDB all the records we have available – about 30 million at the last count. This entire database will be available to all county recorders and to people they choose to also give access to. It will probably not ever be accessible to the general public – they have the Maps Scheme and the NBN Gateway to provide carefully filtered data. The DDB is intended for expert botanists, and it will have very little in the way of filters to prevent you seeing records. The Maps Scheme has shown us just how awful botanical records can be if they are not carefully checked and validated. But there is now a lot of expertise in automatically checking data, and we think this is going to become less of a problem. The best thing for a recorder is to have access to all known records, but to be able to check, correct and delete the ones they don’t like, easily.

The distribution database. It looks complicated because it is designed with full functionality, not just as a way of viewing records, but for basic functions it is quick and simple.

Over the next year or so we intend to ask all county recorders to send us data to upload to the DDB, giving us a much better account of the state of recording in Britain and Ireland. Will there be problems? Possibly, and we would like to monitor progress to see how it works out. Some people fear that the data will be downloaded and used inappropriately. But is this likely? What can really go wrong? Plagiarism is by far the most likely thing. Someone can get hold of your records, put their own name on them, and then sell the data as consultancy work or write it up as a paper or article. This has always happened and always will – often inadvertently, but sometimes deliberately. It is not entirely obvious that the DDB will make it worse. If everyone knows that the records are available online, it will be a simple matter to check for plagiarism, and that has got to be a disincentive. So, county recorders, please register for use of the Distribution Database and see how you get on with it. We are pretty sure it will transform biological recording beyond all recognition, but we do not know in exactly what ways. What unexpected outcomes will there be? It will be interesting to see.

7

Hybrid Project progress – May 2011 David Pearman & Chris Preston [email protected]

The project progresses, though it has been a much bigger task than we first anticipated, and has had to be fitted in with many other deadlines. Clive Stace completed his text (covering the nomenclature, morphology, variation and identification, experimental studies, chromosome numbers and references) a year or so back, and we are up to Euphrasia (just over 60% of the way through) on our part, which includes assembling the data, often from herbaria, mapping it, querying oddities and then completing the distribution and habitat part of each account. Getting a feel for the habitat is often very elusive as it is so seldom recorded, and of course many of the aliens and garden escapes are in ruderal habitats. Inevitably this means many questions back to the vice-county recorders, but these are usually answered immediately – many thanks again. We are at present checking the ‘final’ maps for the first half of the species, and will meet in the near future to sign these off and to decide which are interesting enough to publish. We have commissioned draft designs for the final work, but though we all like the idea of mapping the hybrids against the distribution of the parents, as shown on the map on the cover of this newsletter, we fear that the necessary reduction in size for the publication will obscure the hybrid records. We are not going to give a date for completion, but it is not that far away!

Drosera rotundifolia L. x D. anglica Huds. = Drosera x obovata Mert. & W.D.J. Koch The of this hybrid resemble in shape those of D. intermedia more closely than either parent, being narrowly obovate and about 2.5-3 times as long as wide, but as in D. rotundifolia the inflorescence arises more or less centrally and there are no stolons (Culham 1998). Rosenberg (1909) gave many details, including floral differences. The capsules are small and possess empty seeds. There is broad overlap in both the geographical range and the habitat requirements of the parents in the British Isles. Drosera anglica is, however, restricted to permanently moist sites such as soakways and the edges of permanent pools; it extends on to blanket bog only in the areas of very high rainfall. Pearman & Rumsey (2004) described D. x obovata as frequent wherever the parents meet. Hybrid plants are rather more vigorous than those of the parents and are usually found as isolated individuals, but sometimes in small groups (Preston et al . 2002), at the edges of lakes, pools and runnels. Its parents reproduce vegetatively by adventitious buds in the axils and (less frequently) by buds on the leaves, but we know of no observations on vegetative reproduction in the hybrid. Both parents have Circumpolar distributions and the hybrid is recorded from , Asia and North America. Illustrations: Rosenberg (1909); Shimamura (1941); Wood (1955), figs. 20-24; Slack (1986), p. 38; Kondo & Segawa (1988); Culham (1998), p. 106; Pearman & Rumsey (2004), p. 117. Drosera rotundifolia 2n = 20; D. anglica 2n = 40; hybrid 2n = (30). The hybrid appears to be completely sterile. Classic chromosome studies by Rosenberg (1909) showed that the diploid D. rotundifolia carries one of the ancestral genomes of the tetraploid D. anglica . Rosenberg (1909) and Shimamura (1941) found 10 bivalents and 10 univalents at meiosis, leading to irregular division and sterile and embryo-sacs. Drosera species are autogamous and facultatively cleistogamous, thus reducing the chances of crossing.

Crowder et al . (1990) were unsuccessful in producing artificial hybrids, although F 1 seed was produced when D. rotundifolia was used as the female. Kondo & Segawa (1988) successfully produced triploid hybrids which displayed 10 bivalents and 10 univalents at meiosis, as in wild hybrids. Seeholzer (1993) showed that the hybrid stands isoenzymically between its two parents.

8

Axiophyte research Alex Lockton [email protected]

The concept of axiophytes is on the one hand other aspects of ecology and conservation. Most very simple and on the other hand rather subtly plants are axiophytes in some part of their range different to what we have had before. Many and not in another place. You can be an people have, for many years, had a feeling that axiophyte in a place where wetlands are in retreat there are important species, but they have often and need to be protected, but an invasive weed been confused with rare ones. Of course there are where wetlands are commonplace and rare plants and they are, from the point of view increasing. You can be an axiophyte of eutrophic of genetic conservation, very important indeed. farmed soils where farming is in decline, and a But from the point of view of managing the dreaded pest somewhere else. An invasive alien countryside for its ecological value and can be an axiophyte if it grows in mesotrophic ecosystem services, they are sometimes lakes in gravel pits, if mesotrophic lakes in irrelevant. gravel pits are what you have decided, in your wisdom, to be desirable features of the In recent years the conservation agenda has landscape. shifted from rarity alone to ‘rarity and threat,’ which is a more efficient way of targeting Think of axiophytes as analogous to people with resources. However this is again largely specialised skills. If you need more carpenters or irrelevant to conservation in the British Isles, as nurses, then they are the people you want. But if we have few endemics. Threat is also dangerous you are fighting a war, you probably want more if misunderstood, because it can lead one to try soldiers instead. You can measure the success of to protect very common and unimportant plants your educational and political policies by their that happen to be declining because of changing ability to get the right people into the right places land use practices. at the right time. Similarly, we can measure the successes of conservation policy by its ability to We have also had the concept of habitat indicator deliver native grasses in wildflower meadows species for many years. We saw lists of Ancient and mesotrophic freshwater macrophytes in the Woodland Indicators drawn up for various parts drinking water reservoirs. of southern England in the 1990s and many of us assumed that eventually similar lists would The next few papers explore some aspects of the appear for all habitats of conservation value practical use of axiophytes. Jeremy Ison has throughout Britain and Ireland. But they never found them to be an effective way of predicting materialised. No-one has ever successfully (and sometimes improving upon) traditional produced a list of, say, ancient swamp indicators methods of identifying county wildlife sites. for Scotland. The enthusiasts for indicator Angus Hannah bent the rules for drawing up a species lists had not anticipated just how difficult county list of axiophytes and effectively drew up it would be to extend the concept beyond the a list of habitat indicator species for a large site; examples they had used. this resulted in the problem that his site was too homogeneous for the analysis to work properly. This is where the need for the axiophyte concept Thus reinforcing the need for county lists of arose. Axiophytes are not rare species. They are axiophytes, not local lists of habitat indicator not threatened species. They are not simply species. Laura Belton has worked with real data habitat indicator species. They are not native to see if she could extract site lists from a survey species. Nor are they necessarily even species of that was conducted using grid-based recording semi-natural habitats. They may be all of the methods. There are still many aspects of the above, but they do not have to be. They are the practicalities of axiophytes that need to be tested, species that we want, because they are the ones but these three studies give us useful tests of the that grow in the habitats that we want to protect. system when applied to real-life situations. So, to use the concept of axiophytes correctly, you have to understand that it is different to these

9

Axiophyte diversity versus total species diversity in Devon Jeremy Ison, 40 Willeys Avenue, Exeter, Devon, EX2 8ES [email protected]

The data presented here form part of the results of an investigation into whether a simple count of axiophytes (BSBI 2008) recorded at a site was sufficient to distinguish between sites worthy of County Wildlife Site (CWS) status and those that did not meet the necessary criteria. The numbers of axiophytes were compared with the total numbers of vascular plants for 29 sites designated as CWS and 23 sites that were considered not to have met the necessary criteria (DBRC 2008) over the period from 2003 to 2007. These results were used to predict that 20 or more axiophytes were needed for a site to be worthy of CWS status. Similar data were collected for 41 sites that 60 had been surveyed in 2008 but had County Wi ldlif e Si tes (32) Not CWS (27) not yet been considered by the 50 New sites r ej ected (13) selection panel. The results are New sites accepted (28) summarised here. 40 Apart from a few borderline cases, the axiophyte method was found to predict successfully which sites 30 would be selected as County Wildlife sites. As yet, this approach has been 20 tested only in comparison with the procedures currently used. More work is needed in order to assess its 10 absolute validity as a measure of site condition. 0 A striking (and initially unexpected) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 T otal speci es result of this investigation was that the numbers of axiophytes recorded Relationship between species richness and number of axiophytes. at a site did not necessarily correlate Number of axiophytes plotted against total number of species for with the total species richness. In the County Wildlife Sites (CWS), rejected sites (not CWS), and new sites rejected sites there was no recorded in 2008. correlation between the number of axiophytes and the total number of species (rs = 0.095). The County Wildlife Sites showed a positive correlation (rs = 0.428), significant at the 5% level. The rejected sites included examples where there were long species lists with few axiophytes. Sites of conservation interest such as mires or saltmarsh may not have high species diversity, but a high proportion of the species present are axiophytes. Species richness alone is not a good measure of the value of a site, but selecting the axiophytes from a species list provides a much more reliable indicator of a site’s conservation interest.

References Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI) (2008). Axiophytes. http://www.bsbi.org.uk/html/axiophytes.html [Dec 2008]. Devon Biodiversity Records Centre (DBRC) (2008). The Devon Local Sites Manual: Policies and Procedures for the Identification and Designation of Wildlife Sites. Exeter: DBRC.

10

Trialling axiophytes on a Scottish island Angus Hannah

The idea of axiophytes was nurtured in the soil of lowland England; how would it fare when transplanted to a Scottish island? As a result of my recording there over the last ten years, the island of Bute offered an opportunity to find out. The island comprises 153 monads with a significant land area, and an average of just over 200 species have been recorded in each within the last decade. Also available were species lists for 430 (mostly) small plots, chosen partly as habitat samples and partly to record associates of some interesting species. The first step in compiling an axiophyte list is to select habitats ‘of conservation interest’ in one’s locality. In the case of Bute, I defined these very broadly, and listed species typical of the following: • Fresh water (still or slow: aquatic/emergent plants) • Cultivated/disturbed ground/open vegetation (nutrient rich) • Coastal (saline, including sandy, shingly and rocky shores) • Marsh and fen • Bog/wet heath • Flushes and wet rock (mostly base-rich, at least slightly) • Dry rock/turf/moorland (mostly acid, but including some calcareous exposures; nutrient poor) • Shade (woodland/bracken/ravines/block scree) Most of the local natives and archaeophytes, and a handful of neophytes, figured on one or other of these lists (a few more than once), the exceptions being ruderal plants not typical of any specific habitat, and those of such broad ecological amplitude that they are common nearly everywhere. According to the BSBI guidelines, axiophytes should be selected from these lists by eliminating those species which are too common, to be precise, those found in more than 25% of tetrads in the county. In the present case, this might equate to 25% of monads on the island, at least for a first approximation. But a question was raised as soon as this rule was applied. An axiophyte list selected in this way is unable to identify any habitat, however good, which is too frequent locally, since many of that habitat’s indicator species will have been ruled out of the local axiophyte list by the 25% bar. On Bute, samples of bog and wet heath are found in 65% of monads, and characteristic species of the habitat such as Erica tetralix, Narthecium ossifragum, Eriophorum angustifolium, Viola palustris, Pedicularis sylvatica, Dactylorhiza maculata, Drosera rotundifolia and Trichophorum germanicum all occur over 50% of monads. These and others would therefore be disqualified, leaving the habitat with a short axiophyte list of relatively uncommon species. All squares consisting largely of bog would have a low axiophyte score. But the fact that a good habitat is widespread locally does not reduce its inherent value. On the contrary, its conservation value may be increased by the very fact that it is extensive enough to support sustainable populations, not only of plants but more generally. This problem has not been addressed because (I suspect) the concept of axiophytes was developed in lowland England, where it is a safe assumption that good habitat will not be widespread. It is a problem we have to think about in Scotland especially (but one we may be glad to have!). A possible solution is to adjust the bar selectively, so that in the case of the most widespread habitats, axiophytes may be admitted with up to 50%, or even 65% tetrad scores, as in the above case, while retaining a 25% (or even lower) limit for less frequent habitats. In fact, the axiophyte list used to generate the maps did not include any of the above-mentioned species, though the bar was raised to 50% for the more widespread habitats. Further experimentation and fine-tuning of the selection procedure might be worthwhile.

11

9899 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011 989901234567891011 989901234567891011 74 173 176 199 27 23 23 16 13 12 74 73 135 194 144 210 166 15 42 20 28 6 11 22 14 13 4 73 72 116 175 128 120 134 206 149 13 33 19 13 20 20 10 11 19 15 11 15 10 7 72 71 213 138 148 118 143 257 165 31 19 22 12 23 33 12 15 14 15 10 16 13 7 71 70 244 127 110 201 85 146 250 173 43 10 15 35 10 15 32 9 18 8 14 17 12 10 13 5 70 69 213 252 129 269 127 85 124 224 221 32 39 18 45 16 8 17 12 26 15 16 14 17 13 9 14 5 12 69 68 263 183 206 225 181 194 238 256 42 27 27 29 34 18 18 27 16 15 13 13 19 9 8 11 68 67 258 180 199 214 277 246 247 123 47 16 23 20 31 34 24 8 18 911 9111410 7 67 66 241 230 196 175 160 181 187 218 37 33 21 10 8 15 13 26 151411 6 4 8 712 66 65 200 151 160 169 193 171 241 20 18 17 7 14 19 28 10 12 10 4 7 10 12 65 64 329 173 165 162 194 241 196 227 90 10 19 17 13 38 24 27 27 6 11 11 7 16 12 11 64 63 248 158 198 239 260 246 229 306 62 8 8 40 31 35 17 48 25 5 4 17 12 14 7 16 63 62 310 190 206 217 282 252 163 267 85 10 14 23 48 37 12 45 27 5 7 11 17 15 7 17 62 61 204 251 203 224 253 207 252 244 51 27 18 44 45 21 46 44 25 11 9 20 18 10 18 18 61 60 270 175 259 241 174 168 274 164 55 28 56 35 24 24 42 22 20 16 22 15 14 14 15 14 60 59 300+ 318 180 280 181 148 246 238 248 80+ 76 35 63 19 21 37 36 50 25.5+ 24 19 23 10 14 15 14 18 59 58 275-299 271 281 263 145 182 254 214 161 65-79 60 59 58 6 19 43 19 18 22.5-25.4 18 21 22 4 10 17 9 11 58 57 250-274 255 241 183 220 158 174 238 49-64 59 57 30 16 11 9 37 19.5-22.4 22 2316 7 7 516 57 56 225-249 283 192 198 260 204 38-48 67 26 27 48 36 16.5-19.4 23 14 14 19 18 56 55 200-224 308 269 29-37 79 39 13.5-16.4 25 14 55 54 175-199 313 197 329 212 21-28 80 29 80 42 11.5-13.4 25 15 24 20 54 53 150-174 299 232 161 289 17-20 82 43 35 81 9.5 -11.4 27 19 22 28 53 52 125-149 178 273 224 191 13-16 33 72 64 45 7.5 -9.4 19 26 28 24 52 51 100-124 169 9-12 43 5.5 -7.4 25 51 0-99 0-8 0 - 5.4 Species recorded per monad, 2001-2010 Count of axiophytes in each monad Axiophytes as percentage of species count Figure 1: species richness vs axiophyte richness in each monad on Bute.

The maps show how axiophyte analysis works in an area that is well-recorded. Map 1 (on the left) plots species diversity within each monad; this indicates the variety of habitats present, and to a lesser degree, their species richness. Map 2, showing the number of axiophytes present, shifts the balance so that roughly equal weight is given to both these factors. Map 3, plotting axiophytes as a percentage of all species recorded in each square, is the most useful. Not only does it allow ‘fair’ treatment for partial squares at the margins, it eliminates altogether the variety factor, and focuses entirely on quality of habitat, so that squares with a single, relatively species-poor community may still score highly if the habitat is a good example of its kind. A general glance at the maps will reveal that some squares in the north of the island, which score lowest of all on map 1, look less bad on map 2 and on map 3 score averagely. This is hill ground of no particular interest, but deserving to score more highly than the improved agricultural land in the central section of the island, which shows up yellow (poor) on map 2 and even more clearly on map 3, despite appearing of moderate richness on map 1. The best areas of Bute, the southern extremity and the shore in the mid-west, show up more distinctly on map 3. Conversely, the square 1063, midway up the east coast, promises well on map 1, with over 300 species recorded, but is seen on map 3 to be unremarkable, the high score being due to a rich variety of habitats in close proximity, rather than any of outstanding merit. In general, map 3 conveys an accurate impression of the botanical quality of different parts of the island, and demonstrates the validity and usefulness of axiophyte analysis. However, it is only fair to point out that good general recording throughout the survey area is a prerequisite of this work, since the results would be skewed by any squares where records were deficient. Analysis of species lists from the sample plots also provided some interesting results. About 50% had 0-1 axiophyte, while about 10% had 8 or more (up to 11). Most of these latter plots had 30-40 species in all, and so the axiophyte percentage was in the region of 25-30 (i.e. comparable to the best monads). These plots represented good examples of most of the habitat types initially selected. One outstanding plot had 20 axiophytes out of a total of 52 species, and indicated a site that clearly deserves monitoring.

12

An algorithm to enumerate axiophyte richness in SSSIs L. Belton, University of Birmingham [email protected]

It is postulated that sites that are rich in axiophytes are worthy of conservation (BSBI, 2010), so given the conservation status of SSSIs one may wonder whether SSSIs have a rich axiophyte flora. However, little is known about what constitutes axiophyte richness (number of axiophytes) in SSSIs, or how and why axiophyte richness may vary between SSSIs. To this end, I have developed an algorithm to enumerate axiophyte richness in Shropshire’s botanical SSSIs, and have performed initia l analyses to constitute axiophyte richness in, and to assess how and why axiophyte richness may vary between, Shropshire’s SSSIs. Here I present the algorithm methodology, and main results to date.

Figure 1: Decision tree for determining whether a site is of botanical or non-botanical interest. SSSI data variables (site designation, habitats) are used to determine each SSSI as botanical or non -botanical based on the fact that SSSIs may have one or more designation including a geological designation, and one or more habitats including any combination of “Earth Heritage”, aquatic habitats, or botanical habitats. Such a decision tree is required to identify SSSIs of botanical interest using a repeatable method, so that boundary -based data for botanical SSSI can be matched appropriately with BSBI species data.

The algorithm was developed to programmatically match grid -based botanical records, resulting from BSBI recording activities in Shropshire, to site -centroid references for botanical SSSIs in Shropshire . The algorithm was required since site names relating to BSBI records did not necessarily correspond to SSSI names. Descriptive data relating to each SSSI in Shropshire including SSSI name, centroid grid reference, area in hectares (ha), designation, and habitat type(s), were downloaded from the Natural England (NE) website (NE, 2010). Botanical records recorded at sites within Shropshire’s SSSI boundaries (since 1990) including site name, species, grid reference, year of record, and status (axiophyte or n ot) were obtained from the coordinator of the BSBI. Prior to applying the algorithm, Shropshire’s SSSIs were deemed as botanical or non -botanical according to the decision tree presented in Figure 1. The algorithm was then used to match BSBI records to bot anical SSSIs (Figure 2). BSBI records were fist matched to the appropriate SSSI based on site name alone for those records where site name corresponded to SSSI name. In stage 2 of the algorithm records were matched based on text string(s) within site name that corresponded to SSSI name (common strings were not considered in the matching process). Unmatched BSBI data were then matched to SSSIs based on hectad grid references and then monad grid references for hectads/monads that were unique to a single SSSI. In the final stage, unmerged BSBI data were merged as necessary at the discretion of the county recorder. All data generated by means of the decision tree and algorithm were checked by Shropshire’s county recorder to ensure integrity of derived data.

13

The total number of axiophyte species recorded for the SSSIs was 238 out of 369, (64% of total axiophyte species in the Shropshire list (BSBI, 2010). The minimum and maximum axiophyte richness was 2 and 103 respectively. The lower, median, and upper quartiles were 17, 32, and 52 respectively; the mean (standard deviation) number of axiophytes was 36.6 (24.8). In univariate analyses, an increase in area (ha), number of unique habitats, and species richness were found to be significantly associated with an increase in axiophyte richness. Given the extent of co-linearity between these covariates, multivariate analyses were not pursued on this occasion.

Figure 2: Algorithm for merging BSBI grid-based data with SSSI boundary-based data. BSBI data are merged at first, based on site name, or text string(s) in site name, or hectad grid reference, or monad grid reference, in a stepwise process to the SSSI data. Any unmerged data are then merged as necessary at the discretion of the county recorder. Such an algorithm aids the merging of grid-based records with SSSI boundary-based data.

References Botanical Society of the British Isles (2010) Axiophytes [online – accessed October 2010] http://www.bsbi.org.uk/axiophytes.html. Natural England (2010) Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Reports and Statistics [online – accessed October 2010] www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk.

14

Threatened Plant Project: species accounts Kevin Walker [email protected] This is the first of a series of reports that we will be producing for species covered by the Threatened Plant Project. In the future we intend to publish these as pdfs on the website but we are including this one in Recorder to give you a chance to comment on both the content and style. We would also be interested in your views on the overall findings and conclusions regarding the conservation of this species.

Astragalus danicus Retz. Purple Milk-vetch An attractive low-growing perennial of short calcareous , basic rock outcrops, sand and cliff-tops (Fig. 1). Inland populations extend from Salisbury Plain to Yorkshire with outliers on hills in the Eastern Scotland (Fig. 2). Coastal populations extend from Durham to the Moray Firth in Northern Scotland with outliers on the north and west coast and the Isle of Man. In Ireland it is restricted to the Arran Islands of the coast of the Burren, County Clare. Most populations are lowland but it extends to 710 m in Scotland and 2,400 m in the Alps. Its world distribution is circumpolar extending from Northwest Europe to Eastern Siberia and North America. All British and Irish populations belong to subsp. danicus which is endemic to Western Europe. Siberian and North American populations belong to subsp. dasyglottis . Astragalus danicus appears to have declined substantially in the southern half of its range, mainly due to agricultural changes. As a consequence it is now classified as a ‘Vulnerable’ Red Data List species (Cheffings & Farrell, 2005) and is included as a ‘priority species’ in the UK’s Biodiversity Action Plan. However, very little is known about its ecological requirements, the extent of this decline or indeed the threats it currently faces. In order to answer these questions a national survey of populations was undertaken as part of the BSBI’s Threatened Plant Project (TPP) in 2008. This report presents a summary of the main findings. Nomenclature for plants follows Stace (2010) including names for National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities. Figure 1: Astragalus danicus growing in short calcareous grassland on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire. Photo by Sharon Pilkington. Aims The main aims of the survey were to quantify the extent of recent declines, assess trends in relation to geographic region, habitat and perceived threats, gather basic information on the size of populations, ecological requirements and management, and provide recommendations on current status, management and conservation.

The 2008 Survey In 2008 vice-county recorders (VCRs) in 35 counties were asked to revisit 104 randomly selected sites for A. danicus (stratified by vice-county). The number of sites selected per vice-county was proportional to the number of 10 km grid squares in which A. danicus had been recorded in the past with the overall aim of achieving 100 sites nationally. These were selected randomly from a ‘pool’ of recent (post-1970) high resolution records (at least tetrad, preferably 100 m), although this was not possible in all vice-counties. Sixty-two random populations were resurveyed as well 35 additional sites recorded using exactly the same methodology (Table 1). With the exception of 9 sites (7 in 2009,

15

2 in 2010) all surveys took place in 2008, mainly in May (22%), June (52%) and July (15%) although the survey season extended from 6 May to 26 September. Some 57 surveyors took part in these surveys (see Acknowledgements). As Fig. 2 shows the survey included sites from the entire British and Irish range of A. danicus , including outlying populations on the west coasts of Scotland and Ireland and mountains in the eastern highlands of Scotland. Overall the sample represents 26% of the known historic range of A. danicus at the hectad scale with survey sites in 66 hectads in 31 vice-counties. In total 245 individual records were made at 10 m resolution within 97 hectares and 72 monads.

Population trends Astragalus danicus could not be relocated on twenty-six of the 62 randomly selected sites giving an overall loss of 42%. The figure for the non- random sites was much lower (6%) but this is not surprising as recorders tended to choose sites where they knew A. danicus still occurred or had been seen recently. However, these losses were not distributed evenly with inland populations in southern, eastern and northern England having suffered much greater losses than predominantly coastal populations in Scotland (Table 1).

Figure 2: the hectad distribution of A. danicus in Britain & Ireland. Red squares denote hectads where populations were surveyed in 2008-10; green squares denote unsampled squares.

Table 1. The number of extant populations of Astragalus danicus in relation to random and non- random sites surveyed and UK region Extant Lost % lost Random sites 36 26 42 Non-random sites 33 2 6 All sites 69 28 29 Region (random sites only): SE & SW England 6 7 54 East Anglia & East Midlands 3 6 67 Northern England 5 8 61 Scotland 21 5 19 Wales Not present Ireland 1 0 0

16

Population size, extent and abundance The average size of A. danicus 50 30 populations was generally small with over 40 20 three-quarters of populations surveyed 30 20 supporting less than 500 individuals (Fig. 10 10 % populations 3a; see ‘Regeneration’ for a discussion of % populations 0 0 the units recorded). The largest 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 <1 1 0 0 500 50 0 000 0 0 1- - 5 1- 1 0 11-100 1 > 11-100 - populations (>1000) occurred on sand- 0 01-5000 01 -100000 1 301- 501-1 0 1 1 >100000 1 1001-1 0 00 dunes and sea-cliffs in the north as well as 1 inland on Salisbury Plain and in East (a) Population size (b) Extent (square metres)

Anglia, as well as at 700 m on Meall an 60 80

Daimh in Perthshire, the highest UK 40 60 40 station, where it grows with A. alpinus . 20 The extent of populations was also rather 20 % populations % populations 0 0 small, usually not exceeding 1 ha (Fig. 0 0 <1 5 t t - >50 h n n .1-1 .1 sed a da 1 0 li d n 3b). Only three populations were larger: 1 patc a n u c u b gle o b A in y a Ross Links, North Northumberland (14 S ll Very l ca ha), Silk Hill, South Wiltshire (12 ha), Lo and Morrich More, East Ross (1.4 ha). (c) Density (plants per square m) (d) Abundance Figure 3: The size and extent of Astragalus danicus populations: (a) size, (b) extent, (c) density of plants, and (d) abundance Habitats (based on subjective assessments by surveyors). The density of plants across the whole survey areas was generally low (<1 In the southern half of its range A. danicus clump m -2; Fig. 3c) but in reality A. danicus was locally abundant is confined to shallow soils overlying on most sites, occurring as scattered patches around rock chalk and limestone, including acidic outcrops, along paths, or in areas of very short vegetation, etc. ‘blown sands’ enriched by calcareous (Fig. 3d). material (e.g. East Anglia, Lincolnshire). Northern populations occur on a range of 40 60 50 basic rock types including basalt, andesite, 30 mica-schists, calcareous sandstone and 40 Old Red Sandstone. Coastal populations 20 30 20 10 also occur on blown sands (dunes, cliff- % populations

% populations 10 tops) and low cliffs made of boulder clay. 0 0

Most populations surveyed were on level E S N W 0 0 30 40 Flat >40 or very gently sloping ground with a 1-1 11-20 21- 31- (a) Aspect (b) Slope (degrees) southerly aspect (Figs 4a & 4b). The altitudinal range was from sea-level to 710 50 70 60 40 m in Perthshire, although most 50 populations occur between sea-level and 30 40 20 30 50 m (Fig. 5c). 20 % populations

% populations 10 10 A. danicus was recorded in ten broad 0 0 habitats the most frequent being cliff-top 0 0 100 300 700 0-10 - - - <10 -10 51 11-3 coastal grassland, calcareous grassland, 201 401-500 601 31 ‘fixed’ sand-dunes and acid grassland over (c) Altitude (mOD) (d) Vegetation height (cm) calcareous substrates (Fig. 5). At a few Figure 4: Physical characteristics of Astragalus danicus sites it was recorded in montane grassland populations: (a) aspect, (b) slope, (c) altitude, and (d) height of and on inland rock outcrops in Scotland, the surrounding vegetation (cm). industrial waste on sand dunes in NE Yorkshire, and elsewhere in neutral grassland (including road verges) and coastal heath. Within all these habitats A. danicus was typically associated with very short vegetation (<10 cm) maintained by grazing, drought, or physical disturbance caused by trampling, mowing or animal activity (Fig. 4d).

17

Associated species One hundred and eighty species were recorded with A. danicus (61 sites, 80 40 circular quadrats measuring 2 m in 30 diameter). The average number of % 20 associates was 12.5 (±0.7; range 3-34) although this varied depending on broad 10 habitat type: plots in calcareous 0 were the most diverse (18.1 e e h ss un ste ary t ra d rock a ea g ntan w grass al grass id grass nd l ±1.8) whereas dunes (14.4 ±1.2), inland us Mo a o Sand Ac Bound utral re Inl e astal h rock (12 ±0.7) and acid grassland (11.1 Coast a ustria N Co alc ±1.6) were intermediate. Coastal C Ind grassland was the least diverse of all the Broad habitat habitats surveyed (8.7 ±0.9). The species most frequently associated with Figure 5: Broad habitats in which Astragalus danicus was A. danicus , in over one third of quadrats, recorded. were Lotus corniculatus , rubra , Galium verum and Plantago lanceolata (Table 2). Notable national rarities recorded with A. danicus included Carex ericetorum , Dianthus deltoides , Juncus balticus and Pulsatilla vulgaris .

Table 2. The most frequent associates of Astragalus danicus in 80 quadrats (species in >8 quadrats) Species % Species % Lotus corniculatus 59 Bromopsis erecta 15 Plantago lanceolata 58 Plantago coronopus 15 Galium verum 54 Carex flacca 14 Festuca rubra 46 Helianthemum nummularium 14 Thymus polytrichus 31 Luzula campestris 14 Armeria maritima 28 Anthoxanthum odoratum 13 Koeleria macrantha 26 Anthyllis vulneraria 13 Achillea millefolium 25 Arrhenatherum elatius 13 Trifolium repens 24 Centaurea nigra 13 Cerastium fontanum 20 Dactylis glomerata 13 Festuca ovina 20 Hypochaeris radicata 13 Linum catharticum 19 Ranunculus bulbosus 13 Briza media 18 Campanula rotundifolia 11 Taraxacum officinale 18 Carex arenaria 11 Agrostis capillaris 16 Holcus lanatus 11 Senecio jacobaea 16 Pilosella officinarum 11 pinnatum 15 Sanguisorba minor 11

Figure 6 shows the relationships between these quadrats in relation to broad habitats. Two distinct clusters are apparent: vegetation on chalk, limestone or sands over chalk or limestone on the left hand- side of the first axis and coastal vegetation on the right, including some inland rock outcrops and acid grasslands with a maritime influence. On the second axis sand populations are separated from maritime grassland although there is much overlap between coastal vegetation types.

18

Vegetation types Lists of associated species were assigned to British National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities using the programme Tablefit (Hill, 1996). Twenty-one NVC communities were identified in seven of the main NVC groups, most notably calcareous Boundary 4 grassland (CG), maritime communities Neut grass (MC) and sand dunes (SD) (Fig. 7). On Calc grass chalk A. danicus was found mainly 3 Montane within short Bromopsis erecta (CG3) Inland rock grassland whereas limestone populations Dunes 2 were usually associated with Coast grass Brachypodium pinnatum (CG4) or Acid grass DCA2 Bromopsis erecta - Brachypodium 1 Coast heath pinnatum (CG5) grassland. In comparison, its occurrence in the stands of Festuca-Hieracium-Thymus grassland 0 (CG7) were all on ‘fixed’ coastal sands in NE Scotland. At its altitudinal limit in -1 Perthshire A. danicus occurred within -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Festuca -Agrostis-Thymus grassland (Carex pulicaris - C. panicea sub- DCA1 community; CG10b), a species-rich submontane grassland that occurs on a Figure 6: Ordination diagram showing the relationship between wide range of calcareous bedrocks. A quadrats containing Astragalus danicus in relation to broad habitat type. The ordination plot was produced using Detrended number of populations occurred within Correspondence Analysis in Canoco (for Windows) and was the Pastinaca sativa and Centaurea nigra based on DAFOR abundance scores converted to a numeric (1- subcommunities of mesotrophic 5) scale. Arrhenatherum elatius grassland (MG1e/d), reflecting the occurrence of A. danicus within unmanaged grassland sites in southern England. At Cranwich Heath in East Anglia, and on igneous rock outcrops at two sites in Scotland A. danicus occurred in Festuca-Agrostis-Rumex acetosella acid grassland (U1d). Most cliff top

20

15

10 % populations % 5

0

e a a b a e a b 3c 6a 2 4 7 8 0b 7 /d 2 1d/ G 3a/b G5a CG6 1 U1d H a/f/g W G M CG CG C CG CG MC9c SD7 SD9 CG CG C8 MC10a SD8a/b M C5a/c SD10a/b M M NVC community Figure 7: National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities in which Astragalus danicus was recorded. Bars are colour-coded to show the main vegetation types: W = woodlands & scrub; MG = mesotrophic grassland; CG = calcareous grassland; U = acid grassland; H = heathlands; MC = maritime communities; SD = sand dunes.

19 populations occurred in Festuca rubra-Armeria maritima maritime grassland (MC8), extending into more droughted Armeria maritima-Cerastium diffusum therophyte community (MC5) at some sites. Cliff top colonies were also recorded in ranker Festuca rubra -Holcus lanatus cliff top grassland (MC9) and much shorter F. rubra -Plantago spp. turf (MC10) in grazed situations away from the cliff edge. Virtually all sand dune populations were confined to Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland (SD8), the characteristic grassland of stabilized coastal sands on dunes in Britain.

Regeneration One of the main difficulties in estimating population sizes for a patch-forming species such as A. danicus is defining what we mean by an individual. In order to overcome this we asked recorders to note the unit counted: in nearly 80% of cases these were either ‘clumps’ (56%) or ‘rosettes’ (21%) which were presumably small patches. In 23% of cases recorders counted flowering/fruiting spikes although the extent to which these were separate flowering/fruiting patches or individual stems is unknown. This information should be borne in mind when interpreting the findings given below. Astragalus danicus appears to be regenerating well at most sites with flowering or fruiting recorded at 66 of the 69 extant sites surveyed. Although information on the proportion of flowering and non- flowering individuals was very patchy some crude conclusions can be drawn from the limited data available: on average 38% (±5) of patches had flowers (IQR = 0-65%) whereas only 12% (±4) had fruits (IQR = 0-16%). However, these results should be treated with caution because of the small sample size and the differences in the dates of surveys which ranged between the 6 May and 26 September (90% of surveys were carried out between start of May and end of July). Very few immature or vegetative plants were recorded presumably because A. danicus is difficult to find when not in or fruit. However, the extent to which there is a genuine lack of recruitment requires further work. The occurrence of A. danicus in some recent or artificially created habitats such as clear-felled plantations, industrial waste deposits, abandoned runways, suggests it is able to colonise new habitats fairly readily from either seed bank (as on Cranwich heath) or by local dispersal of seed.

Management Between 50-60% of Astragalus danicus sites surveyed were recorded as receiving some form of grazing either by livestock and/or wild grazers such as rabbits or deer (Table 3). Other management to control grass growth (e.g. cutting, burning) was carried out an about 10% of sites. Consequently between 30-40% of sites appear to be unmanaged which is surprising given the apparent poor competitive ability of A. danicus and its need for short vegetation. It can only be presumed that these sites are either in suboptimal condition and that consequently A. danicus is declining or that the physical conditions are so harsh that grass growth is severely restricted (e.g. due to exposure, soil depth, etc.). Over 90% of sites received either no or very low levels of shading and likewise over 50% showed virtually no evidence of disturbance of the grassland in which A. danicus occurred (Table 3).

Table 3. Summary of factors likely to influence the abundance of Astragalus danicus . Numbers of assessments made given in parentheses; figures are percentages. Level Grazing (57) Shading (54) Disturbance (52) None 37 81 29 Low 28 13 33 Medium 14 6 25 High 21 0 13

20

Threats Nineteen threats were listed as potentially affecting Astragalus danicus on 45 sites. By far the most important was under-grazing which was listed as a potential problem on 22% of these sites although this is more like 30% if scrub invasion, the third most important threat, is also included (Table 4a). In comparison, over-grazing was reported as a threat on 11% of sites. Other major threats related to human activities such as military activities (on Salisbury Plain), urban, road and recreational developments and trampling associated with recreational activities. In addition a small number of coastal populations appear susceptible to erosion. Interestingly few populations appear to be suffering from eutrophication, either from direct (agricultural) or indirect (atmospheric) sources, although the gradual nature of these effects means they are unlikely to be discernible on a single visit. Twenty- three reasons were listed for the loss of A. danicus on 28 sites (Table 4b). Again the most important was under-grazing which accounted for 16% of losses, but this increased to 24% when scrub invasion, the third most important reason, was added to the total. In comparison to threats, eutrophication was the second most important factor accounting for 14% of localized extinctions. Other reasons were similar to those listed under threats although succession to woodland and afforestation has clearly caused localized losses in some areas. At a small number of sites it was not clear if A. danicus was still present or indeed if the original record was correct. Interestingly invasive alien species were not listed as a threat or reason for loss at any sites whereas a competition with a number of native species appears to be causing declines on some sites (e.g. Brachypodium pinnatum , Pteridium aquilinum ).

Table 4. Potential threats to extant populations of Astragalus danicus (a) and reason for loss on sites where A. danicus has disappeared (b). Only the top ten are displayed for each (in descending order of importance). Others are listed below the table. (a) Threats % (b) Reason for loss % Under-grazing 22 Under-grazing 16 Over-grazing 11 Eutrophication 14 Scrub invasion 8 Scrub invasion 8 Military activities 8 Urban/road develop. 6 Urban/road development 7 Lack of wood mgt. 6 Recreation development 6 Afforestation 6 Trampling 6 Possibly overlooked 6 Burning 6 Recreation develop. 4 Eutrophication 4 Trampling 4 Coastal erosion 4 Recording error 4 Other threats: invasive species, drought, competition Other reasons for loss: agricultural improvement, with Brachypodium pinnatum , vehicle damage, burning, coastal erosion, damage by military agricultural improvement, herbicide to control weeds, activities, increased grass growth (milder winters), bracken, mineral extraction, species transient at this invasive species, lack of disturbance, loss of habitat, site. over-grazing, quarry filled-in, sea defence works, unknown.

Conclusions Astragalus danicus suffered a dramatic decline in the southern and eastern part of its range in the British Isles, mainly as a result of reductions in the frequency and intensity of grazing on chalk and limestone grassland in lowland regions. This has resulted in many of its former sites being ‘scrubbed- over’. On some sites it has also suffered from over-grazing, presumably by rabbits, and eutrophication. Coastal populations in northern England and Scotland have fared much better, and in some parts of Eastern Scotland it is still locally abundant and is not threatened. In the southern half of its range, where it is threatened, the priority for conservation should be to ensure livestock grazing to maintain short swards (5-10 cm). There is probably much flexibility in how this can be achieved although winter sheep grazing (<5 sheep ha -1) is probably ideal on most

21 sites. On smaller sites where grazing is impractical, mowing may be the only practical way of reducing the abundance of potential competitors. In the longer term the restoration of semi-natural habitats that connect existing populations and promote gene-flow via pollinators, may be needed to maintain the overall resilience of populations in the face of future land use and environmental changes. Little is known about the regenerative ecology of A. danicus and further research is needed to assess its main requirements including pollination, reproductive system, regenerative strategy (seed versus vegetative) as well as seed production and germination requirements. An assessment of genetic and morphological variation within British and Irish populations, particularly coastal, inland, montane and western (West Scotland, Ireland), could also help to elucidate the post-glacial history of the history as well as placing British and Irish populations in a wider European context (from a taxonomic and ecological standpoint).

Acknowledgements The BSBI are extremely grateful to the following recorders who surveyed A. danicus sites in 2008: P. Abbott, G.H. Ballantyne, B.R. Ballinger, C.B. Ballinger, G. Beckett, K. Beckett, P. Billinghurst, C.R. Boon, J. Bowler, M.E. Braithwaite, M. Button, M. Clarkson, J. Cook, J.L. Durkin, I.M. Evans, P.G. Evans, G.C. French, G. Gent, A. Godfrey, I.P. Green, S. Grinsted, R. Grose, A.M. Hall, S. Hartley, C. Hutchinson, H. Jackson, T.J. James, R. Jefferson, V. Jones, H.J. Killick, P. Kirby, C. Kitchen, M.A.R. Kitchen, A.C. Leslie, J. McIntosh, A.M. Meek, E.R. Meek, C. Metherell, R. Middleton, N. Millar, J.R. Moon, A.R.G. Mundell, J. Muscott, C.D. Preston, A.J. Richards, M.C. Robinson, E. Rollo, J. Squirrell, P. Stebbings, P. Stroh, A. Tree, K.J. Walker, D. Welch, M.F. Wildish, V. Wilkin, R. Wilson and M. Yates.

References Cheffings, C.M., Farrell, L. (Eds), 2005. The Red Data List for . Species Status 7: 1-116. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Hill, M.O., 1996. Tablefit. Version 1.0. For the Identification of Vegetation Types . Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Huntingdon. Stace, C. 2010. New Flora of the British Isles . Third Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

22

The status of Senecio cambrensis Rosser, Welsh Groundsel Lucy Boyett [email protected]

Senecio cambrensis Rosser, a hybrid derivative of L. and L., is endemic to the British Isles and has a Near Threatened status. It was first found in in 1948, and later discovered in Edinburgh in 1982. The Edinburgh population has since become extinct, and the North Wales population also appears to be in decline. There have been three main surveys for S. cambrensis revisiting the known sites in North Wales. These were carried out by Ingram & Noltie in 1982-1984, by V. Morgan in 1987, and Abbott et al. in 2002- 2004. Another survey has been carried out by Paul Ashton, but I am yet to follow up his records. There are also many additional records from a number of smaller surveys. The main areas in which it was previously found include; the north Wales coast (at Mochdre and Llanddulas), near Wrexham (at Minera, Ffrith, Llanfynydd, Ruabon, Brymbo, Southsea, Brynteg, Pentre Broughton, Ffos-y-go, Rhostyllen, Stansty Park and Gwersyllt), and at Alltami/New Brighton, Figure 1: distribution of Senecio cambrensis in North Chirk and Pentre. In all of these cases Wales (v.cc. 50 and 51) (monads). Black dots are for current sites (2010). S. cambrensis was found along roadsides. During May/June 2010 I revisited and surveyed all known sites in North Wales and recorded the number of individuals found. For each site where the species was found, photos and voucher specimens were taken, which have been confirmed by Dr Tim Rich and donated to the National Museum of Wales. The number of known sites (monads) has decreased from 27 in the 1980s to just 12 recorded in 2010 (Fig. 1). Senecio cambrensis was not found in Mochdre or Llanddulas on the north coast, and areas around Wrexham, Alltami and Chirk have greatly reduced. Although in Figure 2 the data does show that new sites are still being found, this may mean that the species is mobile, but it could also be due to varying recording effort. The number of sites lost is also increasing which could again indicate that the species is moving or that it is indeed disappearing. The rate of loss is increasing at a higher rate than the gain of new sites. If this trend were to continue S. cambrensis could be in danger of becoming extinct. To be more confident in this conclusion, 50 much more survey work is needed, to 40 New cover a wider area, and to search 30 sites surrounding roads instead of just revisiting 20 known sites. 10 Lost sites I currently have records for Senecio 0 cambrensis from the three surveys

Number of Sites ( monads) ( Sites of Number Extant mentioned previously and various records sites donated by Alex Lockton and COFNOD. I Date would like to make an appeal, if anyone Figure 2: the number of new sites (monads) found (top line) has any records for this species or for Senecio cambrensis and the number of sites lost (lower knowledge of any potential sites I may line). The dotted line shows the number of extant sites at any have missed, please get in touch. point

23

Are bumble robbing flowers in your neighbourhood? Nic Charlton [email protected]

In the UK the buff-tailed bumble Bombus terrestris will often bite holes in the wildflower red campion Silene dioica . Nectar robbing allows these bees to remove nectar from flowers they wouldn’t normally be able to feed from. It is interesting because not only could they be cheating the plant by not pollinating the flowers, but these nectar robbing bees may also take nectar away from long-tongued species, such as the garden bumble bee Bombus hortorum . Last year I asked for people’s help in checking for holes in red campion flowers made by bumble bees. This involved following some simple instructions to collect information on flowers and whether they showed signs of robbery. In total I received 63 records from 10 regions around the UK from 10 recorders. Of those 63 records, 26 showed some robbery, 10 of which had over 50% of flowers being robbed. In Scotland, there were very low robbery levels, which is interesting because the buff-tailed bumble bee, is less common in the North of the UK. But these 63 records are not enough, and I need your help to get more. If you want to help collect records for this project then follow the instructions below and email me your results. The holes you are looking for are small, neat and rounded. I even want results that show no nectar robbing so we can see the places where it’s not happening. It would be really great to get records of robbery from all around the UK, so when you’re out and about and you see some red campion stop for a minute and have a look for nectar robbing holes. Instructions 1. Find a patch of red campion flowers and count the number of open flowers as accurately as you can. Record this as 'number in patch'. For very large or long patches, an estimate to the nearest 50 is sufficient. Ignore small patches of less than 30 flowers. 2. Choose any 30 open flowers, ideally choose flowers that are spread across the patch, and check for signs of robbery. Record the number of robbed and unrobbed flowers. e.g. 25 robbed 5 unrobbed. This gives a measure of the level of robbery and 0 robbed flowers still counts as a record. 3. From the list below, choose a habitat which best describes where the patch is found, selecting from: - Woodland - Woodland edge - Hedgerow or verge - Grassland - Other, please describe

4. List any other common flowers close to the red campion. Only open flowers. 5. Please state the location of where the patch was recorded, e.g. A postcode, grid reference or address, and the date you checked the flowers. Please email results to [email protected]. Additionally, if you see any bees in the act of robbing, please send details of the species and the location. Photos are also welcome.

24

Meet the BSBI Lynne Farrell was born in Manchester in 1947, daughter of John, an electrical engineer and keen sportsman from Salford, and Lilian, short- hand typist and a gymnast in her younger days. Lynne began work as botanical assistant at Monks Wood in 1965 working with Terry Wells and Derek Wells on chalk grassland, and later on wet and dry meadows, and long-term rare plant population studies. She later acquired a degree in Biology at the New University of Ulster in 1971 and then worked for a landscape architect and at the National Institute for Physical Planning in Dublin.

She produced the world’s first Red Data Book (for vascular plants, of course) with Franklyn Perring, and also various other red data books and lists, and has worked since then mainly at the Nature Conservancy Council, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage, as both a scientist and a team manager. Q: Apart from BSBI, what other organisations are you involved in? A: Five Wildlife Trusts, Winston Churchill Fellows, Butterfly Conservation, Plantlife, Royal Horticultural Society, Young Explorers’ Trust, Field Studies Council, University of the 3 rd Age. Q: You’ve been county recorder for mid Ebudes since 1996. What have been the highlights of that? And what are your ambitions now? A: Exploring the island of Mull and its islets on foot, by boat, and by swimming. Reaching some of the more remote and beautiful spots that others do not reach. Meeting and getting to know the locals, who have all been supportive, and working with BSBI friends in the field. Writing the New Flora of Mull. Only 37 tetrads left to do (at 28 Dec 2010), producing County Rare Plant Register, writing a popular plant guide to Mull. Q: You have recently taken on the role of HGS of the BSBI. What does this involve? A: Sitting at the computer rather more than I anticipated! Being ‘on call’ for most of the year, so field trips need careful planning. Busiest times are Jan - April, and Oct - Dec. Responding to queries and requests from the general public and BSBI members and officers. Sorting out all sorts of things with regard to the day-to-day working of the Society, producing reports and notes for information. Q: What do you think is the main purpose of the BSBI? A: To encourage people to enjoy and study plants through meetings and publications, and to produce useful information on botanical subjects. Q: How do you think the BSBI and the government agencies should relate to each other, especially now there are cuts coming? A: Need to find ways of working closely together using each group’s strengths Q: Women are not well represented in the BSBI. Why is that, and what (if anything) should we do about it? A: The BSBI has been largely run by men for many years and they continue to nominate other males for vacancies. We do need a Society which has representatives of varied ages and backgrounds, both male and female, as general members and in working groups. We especially need to encourage and bring in younger members, who will take the society forward in the future. Q: What do you do when you’re not doing botany? A: Gardening, felt-making, bookbinding, educational courses on music and astronomy, (just hung up my table tennis bat after 50 years of playing in a league), so now just watching sport. Recording butterflies and leaf miners, and helping manage Wildlife Trust Reserves in Cambs.

25

Mary Clare Sheahan spent her early years on the outskirts of Oxford She writes ‘My father loved the country and we often went for long walks at the weekend; I still find great enjoyment from walking.’ She started off studying languages but took a botany degree in the 1980s at Imperial College (but they call it plant science to make it sound less of a soft subject).

Q: Apart from BSBI, what other organisations are you involved in? A: Far too many – mainly concerned with local nature reserves and open spaces such as Barnes Common and Richmond Park; also in a more general way with local biodiversity and conservation issues. I'm an enthusiastic member of the London Natural History Society, and a founder member of Plantlife. It is all very time-consuming. Q: You are responsible for managing the list of referees. How do you select new referees? A: I make a note of anyone with particular expertise I hear or read about and I also consult people I know at Kew and the Natural History Museum. Mostly I rely on valuable advice from members of Records Committee who of course have to approve additions to the referees list. A large part of the job is trying to keep everyone - referees and enquiring members - happy. It's not always easy. Q: Are more referees needed? A: There are gaps in the panel, and I often receive queries about taxa which don't have a referee. We are always interested to know of people who have made a detailed study of a particular plant group, and wish there were more of them. I have the feeling that there are a lot of people doing academic studies who aren't aware of the contributions to scholarship made by the BSBI, and I wish there was some way of accessing their skills and knowledge. Q: Does the referee system work well? A: I think it is one of the glories of the BSBI: we are extraordinarily lucky that so many people (not always BSBI members) are prepared to share their expertise in such a positive and productive way. On the whole the system works very well, though there can sometimes be problems when there is a mismatch between the expectations of members and of referees. Q: What do you do when you’re not doing botany? A: I have a great love of music; I've sung with one choir or another almost all my life and will be sorry when it has to come to an end (as I suppose it must!). Reading is also a great pleasure, and I find belonging to a book group has opened my eyes to a number of books which I would probably not have thought of choosing to read myself. I'm now much involved with grandchildren, who are a great joy. One way and another I am very busy.

26

Gerry Sharkey was born in Finglas, on the north side of Dublin, in 1951, and he still lives there for part of the year. He writes, ‘At that time very few people from our area went on to third-level education, mostly for financial reasons, and after repeating my final year in the forlorn hope of a scholarship in about 1968/9 I went into the world of work armed with a second successful but uninspiring Leaving Certificate. I have no real idea where or even when my botanical interests originated, but one nick-name classmates had for me was The Flower Man. I am not sure that it was meant to be at all complimentary, but there were a lot worse! ‘My glorious career has included work as a tobacconist, a merchandiser (shelf-packer!) and several jobs as storeman. In 1974 I joined the Volvo Construction Equipment agent in Ireland, Pat O’Donnell and Company, where I worked in stores, stock control and IT, eventually leading them through the transition from paper to electronic data processing and overseeing the installation of their first and second main computer systems. I more-or-less retired (early) about two years ago and continue to provide legacy systems support on a consultancy basis. But I am now delighted to describe myself as ‘a naturalist’. Q: Apart from BSBI, what other organisations are you involved in? A: Since 1965 I have been a member of the Dublin Naturalists’ Field Club and served at every possible level from junior member to Hon. President. I am currently DNFC legal Secretary and heavily involved with preparations for our 125 th Anniversary in 2011. Except for a dodgy ‘black’ period in the 1990s involvement with DNFC has, against the odds, kept me relatively sane. I am also a member of the Irish Biogeographical Society, The Galway Naturalists’ Field Club, The Belfast Naturalists’ Field Club, The Irish Wildlife Trust, the British Bryological Society, Birdwatch Ireland, The Royal Entomological Society, the Bees Wasps and Ants Recording Society, the British Entomological and Natural History Society, the Amateur Entomological Society, the British Myriopod and Isopod Group, the Conchological Society, Butterfly Conservation and the Freshwater Biological Association. Well, you asked... Q: Involvement in BSBI: what committees, roles, etc? A: Former recorder for H10 North Tipperary, currently recorder for H26 East Mayo and H27 West Mayo. I have been a member of the Committee for Ireland for some years, and have just been elected vice-chairman. I organise weekend meetings in Mayo most years, and organised our very successful weekend of talks and field meetings in conjunction with the BSBI Committee for Ireland AGM, held in Mayo in 2010. During the ‘One in Nine’ survey I was one of the top contributors, but personal, work and family issues limited my contributions to Atlas2000 well below what I would have liked. Q: You’ve been county recorder for Mayo since 1989. What have been the highlights of that? A: The success of the 2010 AGM weekend was the most recent highlight. Having both D.E. Allen and Alan Newton drinking (tea?) in my front room, a particularly memorable visit by Clive Jeremy and the British Pteridological Society, a couple of visits by Tim Rich and friends, are all highlights for different reasons, during which I met new plants and people. But the real ‘highlight’ is happily repeated at least once every year, when the peace and quiet solitude of standing at a Mayo lake or sea shore in early spring sunshine reminds me that this is what I want to do, where I want to be. Q: And what are your ambitions now? A: I intend to produce a rare plants register for Mayo, and probably some sort of annotated flora check-list over the next few years. There remains a lot of exploration and recording of the Mayo flora (and fauna) to be done, and square-bashing needs to start now if a new BSBI Atlas is to be produced to the planned time-scale. Most importantly I would hope to be in a position, when I can no longer do the job, to hand over my recorder’s positions to Mayo–born, or at least permanently Mayo-resident young botanist(s). Visiting botanists make valuable contributions and are always more than welcome, but committed locally-

27 resident botanists are needed to improve our knowledge of the flora beyond the level of a dot on the map. Q: What do you see as the main function of the BSBI? A: I worry that the current fixation on putting dots on smaller and smaller squares is diffusing our efforts and debasing our skills, wasting and ignoring a large part of the valuable information about the flora buried in the minds of recorders and members. In some ways it could be seen as the easy way to keep them occupied. Dots are easy to understand for the funding managers, of course, and in ensuring adequate coverage during projects. I’m not denying that the dots have their own place in the great scheme, and square-bashing at any level is a great training exercise in field craft and plant identification, but in the context of mapping the flora of the whole of Great Britain and Ireland the appropriate unit size is to me the ten-k square. I would prefer the BSBI to encourage the writing of knowledge-based floras and reports rather than the current apparent concentration on producing masses of uninterpreted data. It is possible to strike a good balance: Arthur Chater’s Flora of Cardiganshire contains an enviable combination of knowledge and data, and sets a high standard for us all to aim at. I see the BSBI having a very important role to fulfil in areas now being abandoned by third-level educational institutions, areas like general identification skills, related research, and plant . We also should be fighting to maintain high standards, and refusing to comply with efforts to down- skill and degrade our work, including for example grossly insulting the public by encouraging the belief that they are incapable of using the scientific names of plants and animals. On the contrary the idea of having to learn a ‘secret code’ helps make them cool, a feeling I remember fondly. Q: How do you see botany developing in Ireland? A: I can only speak with knowledge of the Republic, where the short answer is ‘with great difficulty’. As in many areas of public life, the administrators paid to take responsibility for our environment do not often function in any obvious way, or perhaps are prevented from doing so by vested interests. Politically, support for conservation and natural history concerns is frequently regarded as negative, anti-rural development, anti-agriculture and even unpatriotic. Education is the only way forward but I am not holding my breath! Q: What do you do when you’re not doing botany? A: Entomology, conchology, etc., etc.! Up to 5 or 6 years ago the honest answer would have been ‘Drink’, but those days are over! I do reserve some time to watch football. My Dublin team is Bohemians F.C. and West Ham are the English club I follow. I also love watching cricket, especially England’s favourite Irish bat, Eoin Morgan. I’m writing this before the Ashes, so here’s hoping this does not put the curse on him!

28

County Roundup ngland place on SSSIs as a beneficial result of condition assessment surveys. From Cornwall , Colin French and Ian Bennallick report that ‘members of the EBotanical Cornwall Group are actively Ere-surveying the whole of Cornwall in order to publish the next Flora of Cornwall. There are 3,942 monads to be surveyed in total. Some 336 squares have yet to be visited by the survey team, whilst 54% (2,134 squares) have over 100 species recorded. Clearly it will be a number of years before this survey is completed. The largest gaps are in East Cornwall, particularly on Bodmin Moor, which is both inaccessible and species-poor. The Lizard Peninsula is proving to be very species rich; however, this observation is partly a result of the intensity of recording effort. ‘2010 was a record year for the number of records added to the database with 134,991 records added. Of those, 88,132 Figure 2: number of taxa so far recorded in each monad in Cornwall. records were from surveys conducted in 2010. Twelve new species were added to the Cornish list. Taraxacum undulatum and Rubus ‘Along with the rediscovery of Phegopteris lanaticaulis were native additions and the rest connectilis another highlight of 2010 was the were aliens, including Lupinus albus , chance finding (though in a known site) of two Callistephus chinensis , Saxifraga ×arendsii and populations of Centaurium scilloides at Gwennap Poa imbecilla . The number of new species Head. Not seen in Cornwall since at least 1962, it discovered is gradually reducing year on year, appears that it has always been present but is which is probably an indication of how well difficult to see when not in flower – the large Cornwall has been surveyed in recent decades. showy pink flowers flowering en masse area a joyful sight, but the leaves are insignificant compared to them. There was quite a lot of publicity about the sighting and this brought in a record from an entomologist who when recording invertebrates at the same site in 2003 couldn’t resist photographing these showy flowers – though he hadn’t realised the significance of them. In September samples from a few plants were taken for DNA analysis by Dr Tim Rich of the National Museum of Wales, and this now completes the set of samples for this

species in it known native range. Figure 1: number of species recorded in 2010 per monad. ‘Another highlight of the year was the news that Rose Murphy had been awarded the Marsh Botany. This award is run by the Marsh Christian ‘Ken Preston-Mafham surveyed over 100 Trust in association with Royal Botanic Gardens, monads, Colin Wild consolidated his survey of Kew and was started in November 2000. The the Lizard Peninsula and beyond, Phil Hunt award recognises an individual's lifetime targeted under-recorded squares around St achievement and outstanding contribution in the Austell and Phil Pullen continued to blitz south- field of botanical conservation. Rose collected east Cornwall. Considerable recording also took her award at Kew in November 2010 and

29 enjoyed herself thoroughly, and will be spending Somerset Botany Group. Records from all of her award money on more books. these reach the BSBI via Mapmate. I have input over 15,000 records for 2010 in v.c. 6 alone (and ‘With the increase in specimens from various obviously I still have a backlog to tackle), but herbaria made available on the Herbaria@Home thankfully others input records in Somerset as website, this has been a useful source of well so the total number of records for Somerset obtaining details of records that were once only last year is perhaps more than twice that. vague and non-localised records in various Floras and or reports. Ian Bennallick has gone ‘My priorities this year must include writing through almost all the specimens that are visible many more species accounts for the RPR, on the website and has corrected where the working towards some kind of data exchange details were wrongly interpreted – mostly place with record centres, sending records to NJB, names or people’s names. There is still a lot to being more diligent about visiting the targeted extract but this is an ongoing task.’ TPP sites, tackling some of my identification blind spots, masses of fieldwork concentrating on Helena Crouch says an exciting find in Somerset species on the RPR list, yet also ensuring I (v.c. 6) ‘was Potamogeton obtusifolius at Ham record in all 33 hectads of North Somerset, and Walls RSPB Reserve. This species was first helping build my new study. I am sure I have recorded in Somerset by H.W. Boon in 1973, at missed something.’ Norton Fitzwarren in v.c.5, so it is a relative newcomer; the recent record was the first for v.c. Sharon Pilkington’s report on Wiltshire (v.cc. 7 6. Alas, the VCR can claim no credit: it was & 8) begins: ‘The year started on a victorious discovered by an entomologist. My own new note when I succeeded in importing more than species for Somerset was an alien fern: Pteris 260,000 plant records into my copy of Mapmate tremula in a basement in Bath. and thence onward and upward to the BSBI Hub. These records represented the culmination of ‘Two other species new to Somerset possibly years of dogged hard work on the part of our both arrived as weeds of Mediterranean pot local BRC to deliver a useable database that plants. In April, Urtica membranacea was could efficiently exchange data with recorders; discovered in Nailsea, growing from the crack until then the relationship had been a bit one- between the pavement and a shop wall, looking sided to say the least. Most of the records were exactly like the illustration in BSBI News 103. In detailed site surveys undertaken since the May, Fred Rumsey found Galium murale Wiltshire Flora Mapping Project in the 80’s by growing on the pavement of the Royal Crescent survey teams for the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust and in Bath. Both of these species appear to be the then English Nature. spreading and are worth looking for early in the year. ‘Unfortunately things went a bit downhill after that due in no small part to our house-move in ‘The focus of meetings of Somerset Rare Plants March and all the usual upheaval and hassles Group was the ongoing task of updating records associated with that. With that, and distractions for the Somerset Rare Plant Register. I have now caused by family illness, I was unable to organise written about 75 species accounts, so progress on much in the way of structured botanical surveys the RPR is steady but slow. The list of species in the county over the summer and regrettably and the finished accounts can be viewed on the only managed to get to a few of my rare plant SRPG website (somersetrareplantsgroup.org.uk). sites. However, the Wiltshire Botanical Society SRPG had 13 field meetings this year, some of is now in the habit of recording all species them general recording meetings and all of them whenever they have a field meeting and I am catering for varied levels of interest. We also aiming for full hectad coverage by the end of the organised some identification workshops which current date-class.’ were hugely popular and attracted a slightly different mix of members and friends. More From Kent , v.cc. 15 & 16, Geoffrey Kitchener workshops are planned (and more experts are writes: ‘2010 was my first full year of operation needed, so if anyone fancies a “working” visit to as recorder. A county recording network has now Somerset, please get in touch!) Meanwhile, other been set up. The Kent Botanical Recording groups in Somerset had regular botanical Group (KBRG) was established with 37 meetings: in v.c. 6 these included Cam Valley members at an inaugural meeting on 13 March Wildlife Group, Bristol Naturalists’ Society and 2010. By the end of the year it had expanded to

30

61 members, held five recording meetings and in DC5, we plan to hold at least one field was publicised through a webpage on the BSBI meeting in every hectad of v.c. 17, except site. The webpage includes newsletters and an perhaps those that are being well-covered by account of the year’s records and botanical Mark Spencer and his London Natural History developments (Kent Botany 2010). Relationships Society team. We also aim to encourage have been established with other relevant members to record in their own home monad by organisations, including the Kent and Medway publishing a list of members and the monad in Biological Records Centre. Feedback from those which they live. This way, we may get them involved in the group has been very positive. “over the hump” of sending in records. Take-up for the use of the Mapmate import spreadsheet ‘By the end of January 2011, over 12,000 records for the submission of records has been slow but for 2010 had been input to Mapmate. Plant encouraging.’ records were received, directly or indirectly, from over 50 recorders, mostly KBRG members. Middlesex (v.c. 21, Mark Spencer): ‘In addition The focus has not been on square-bashing, given to my role as BSBI Middlesex Recorder I am the availability of an excellent set of recent tetrad also the London Natural History Society's records upon publication of Eric Philp’s A New vascular plant recorder. Overall the two roles are Atlas of the Kent Flora (2010). Instead, complementary. In late 2008 the LNHS Botany encouragement has been given to updating and committee and I decided that the time had come more precise recording for the rarer plants. A to start planning for an update of Rodney consultation has been issued on the establishment Burton’s Flora of the London Area (1983). Since of a rare plant register, a draft list of taxa issued, the publication of that work, the plant life of and 889 related records for 2010 have been Greater London and the surrounding region has received, which has enabled drafting the register changed massively, the abundance of many non- to be started. During the year Sue Buckingham native plants has increased, whereas many of our was appointed joint recorder for v.c. 15 (East rarer native species continue declining and some Kent), which has helped spread the workload.’ have become extinct; thus, the publication of a new flora seems necessary. Since 2008 there Ann Sankey reports that the Surrey (v.c. 17) have been a series of planning meeting that have Botanical Society ‘organised a record number of investigated a wide range of issues such as the 17 field meetings in 2010, including some mid- geographic scope of the project, the taxonomic week half-days, so there was plenty for members coverage and methods of recording. As you can to choose from. All meetings have a teaching imagine these discussions have generated a element where needed but there was one specific diversity of opinions and some matters remain to teaching meeting for grasses at Chertsey Meads, be resolved. If you would like to learn more or one of our best sites for these. In addition, there are not on the e-mail circulation please do were many informal meetings. A feature of contact me recording in 2010 that sticks in my mind, perhaps ([email protected]). Also, we because the events occurred at the beginning and are hoping to have a series of web pages on the end of the season, was the re-finding of species LNHS website in the future that will provide at locations where they had not been recorded information on the project and its progress. since the early 1960s. Two such species, Stellaria neglecta and Oreopteris limbosperma , ‘As is often the case, I seem to being playing may be good at persisting but it does make catch up with several significant tasks, namely decisions as to what to include in the Scarce updating the Middlesex Plant Records and category of the Rare Plant Register more compiling my returns for the Threatened Plants difficult. If one of the purposes of a RPR is to Project. On the positive side, I have managed to encourage botanists to search out these old sites, fit in a little recording and have arranged several then they should be listed, even if this does make training sessions for beginners and more for a lot of records to include. Despite much specialist sessions on taxa such as Cotoneaster.’ activity over the last few years, we have not been John Durkin has a very active programme of able to get round all sites for all species in our recording in Co. Durham (v.c. 66). ‘Special draft RPR list. attention was given to the least recorded hectads ‘Apart from the above recording, so far, general this year, as recording coverage since 2000 has recording has been on a fairly ad hoc basis. Now, been good but patchy. All hectads were brought

31 up to a minimum of 20% of records being 2000 in the short term the results will contribute on. This ensures that “boring” parts of the county significantly to our goals for tetrad and hectad are also covered. The average Durham hectad mapping nationally. has 682 taxa recorded, with 10,000 records, of ‘Another significant step this year was that we which 42% are 2000 on. Also, sixteen random entered in a data sharing agreement with the monads were surveyed for the North East Flora North-East Environmental Records Information common plants survey. Centre. They gain from having access to our ‘Special surveys of Woodsia ilvensis , Dryopteris records, while we benefit from access to theirs. expansa , Polystichum lonchitis and Sorbus Also, we can ensure that all the records for the rupicola were undertaken, in Teesdale. Andy county are validated, not just our own. Mclay re-found the region’s only Jasione Considering the amount of time and energy that montana , not seen for several years, and he has goes in to collecting and collating our records it almost completed his field work for his Flora of is good to know that they are used. Gateshead. Margaret Bradshaw has a new ‘Work on a Rare Plant Register is continuing and account of the flora of Upper Teesdale in is expected to be put online in 2011 [it’s now on preparation. A second county site flora, covering the web site]. To this aim John Richards has Chopwell Woods, was produced.’ resurveyed and assessed populations of Ribes Meanwhile, in v.c. 67, South Northumberland , spicatum , Festuca altissima and Crepis mollis . Quentin Groom writes: ‘This year has seen the Also, many old sites of other RPR species have start of the North-east Common Plants Survey. been revisited. John O’Reilly has been The spur for this was the recognition that our conducting vegetation sampling in western region lacks detailed records of common plants. Northumberland and adjacent areas in order to It was also recognised that the data we have is get a clearer picture of the composition of local not suitable for monitoring change because it is habitats. His expertise in bryophytes is ideal for too geographically and taxonomically biased. To upland areas, where mosses are often dominant. correct this, we decided on a monad sampling John has also revisited several Border mires in strategy and, in collaboration with John Durkin search of rare sedges. It was during such a survey (v.c. 66), we have randomly selected 200 that he discovered a new site for Calamagrostis sampling sites to be surveyed over four years in canescens , simultaneously ticking boxes for the the two counties. Rare Plant Register and the Common Plants Survey. Clare O’Reilly is improving the regions ‘By conducting intensive surveys of small knowledge on charophytes by encouraging sampling sites over a short time period, we hope collection of specimens and by getting them to have a minimally biased dataset that is refereed. This is a difficult and under-recorded produced in a repeatable manner. This approach group, but nevertheless interesting in terms of avoids many of the systematic biases of county water quality and phytogeography.’ floras, where the data is collected over many years and there is no mechanism for avoiding ales bias and no way of monitoring change during the From v.c. 44 production of the flora. How often do we see (Carmarthenshire ), Richard detailed maps in floras along with the words Pryce writes, ‘The most increasing or declining? Yet, while there is WWimportant event was the plenty of data supporting the maps, there is retirement of George Hutchinson from NMW usually no data or analysis supporting the and his disappearance from the botanical scene. assessment of change. As far as v.c. 44 is concerned, this is a major ‘Volunteer participation in the first year has been blow as it means the loss of the joint County enthusiastic both from BSBI members and from Flora writer as well as the determiner and verifier members of the Northumbria Wildlife Trust. of many new and critical records. NMW does not Progress is good and we are on track to finish in appear minded to replace him or offer a similar four years. We intend to use the data to make service in future or, indeed, even employ a maps of the regions common plants and also keeper for the British Vascular Plant Herbarium. model their requirements to predict changes. In ‘Otherwise the year was relatively uneventful. the future, such data will make an invaluable The TPP was disappointing – didn’t refind any baseline with which to measure change, but even

32

Hordeum marinum sites and I think all the past August 1960 prove the most interesting, as a records refer to H. secalinum as this was present proportion of the cards relate to sites of tetrad (often abundant) in all sites and had not been scale or finer. Work is now planned to input to recorded previously. Chrysanthemum segetum Mapmate those records which can be upgraded to was not seen at all in 2010. Melittis sites rather than hectad; 26 field cards fall into mellisophyllum continues to hang on at its only this category. site. ‘TWIC has failed in 2010 as the record centre for ‘The BIRM & ABS sheets on Herbaria @ Home Lothians and Borders. Offer of BSBI 2009 and have produced some important new (old!) 2010 records not yet taken up. A multi-discipline records including the second record for TWIC recording group has been out across the Pseudorchis albida (Ley, 1896), the previous Lothians and Borders on a few Sundays, which being by Knight in 1908. I’m steadily working does not suit me. I have received records from through all of the nearly 500 sheets now posted. one such outing in Berwickshire thanks to my contacts with individuals. Sadly it was a site I ‘We were presented by the LRC with nearly had resurveyed a few weeks earlier in greater 34,000 records to verify, all recently input from detail. However the orchids had come into flower NC/NCC/CCW paper records. Most are and a few records were added.’ unverifiable except by the recorders themselves (some of whom must by now be dead). Problem ‘Berwickshire BSBI Botanical Site Register is that these records mostly duplicate already (CBSR). This project has come forward by leaps databased ones but often have site-centroid grid and bounds in 2010, with the axiophyte concept refs and so confuse existing records with precise now included. Work is progressing hectad by grid refs. Although Steve Coker has written a hectad: 19 of 23 hectads are now written up in routine in Biorecs to sort these records into ten draft, including all those so far resurveyed in the categories ranging from “accept without current recording cycle. The plan is to complete question” through to “obvious error: expunge”, this by Easter 2011 and to issue it as a not surprisingly we (I) have not had time to carry provisional register, about 350 pp A4, printed out the requested verification. Despite this, all economically by a print-on-demand service. these records have been posted on the NBN Circulation to be limited to 30 copies donated to Gateway (admittedly as “unverified”) so CCW potential users. To be updated when resurvey can report that it is fulfilling its commitment to finished and analysis added. Part of this project is digitize its paper data.’ a hectad by hectad overview in about four pages for a full hectad. This may be offered to the cotland BSBI website as a PDF available for download.’ From Berwickshire (v.c. 81) Michael David Welch (Kincardineshire and North Braithwaite reports ‘resurveys of NT53 Aberdeenshire , v.cc. 91 & 93) writes, ‘I am (mostly by Luke Gaskell), NT56, NT73 S concerned about the shift to a new publication, S(part by Melanie Findlay) and NT96, and the experience in Scotland of moving from with special emphasis on monitoring Rare and the local Bot J. Scotland to Plant Ecology & Scarce populations. Total area sampled: 171 Diversity fuels my concerns. Despite monads. A handful of records submitted by other reassurances from the new publishers that there recorders. Dedicated survey for Sedum villosum would be a continuing slot for papers majored on completed. Some 8,239 records entered Mapmate Scotland, I found that my paper which had for 2010. Threatened Plants Project participation: passed referees and was likely to occupy 10 just two relatively recent sites for pages in this section was suddenly given an edict Chrysanthemum segetum to visit, no plants of “at most two pages”. After argument, it found. There will be no TPP work to do in 2011 appeared as 4 and a bit pages, with the fuller or 2012, except to complete forms for Sedum account available electronically.’ villosum sites visited in 2009 and 2010. Axiophyte list completed. ‘Cutbacks are reaching down to affect botanical and conservation activities. The North-East ‘BRC, per Chris Preston, has now provided Scotland Biological Records Centre is already photocopies of all v.c. 81 field cards for 1962 much reduced in staffing compared to its heyday Atlas. There are many more than expected. As four to six years back, and could well suffer anticipated, those for the BSBI field meeting more in the 2011-2012 cuts. I was also shocked

33 last autumn to find that the lecturer and recorders to cover a whole county, then BSBI technician running the Aberdeen University needs to look to sources of funding to employ herbarium were both retiring, one of them early, specialist surveyors to ensure coverage of sites. I so the expertise built up over many years is lost am much more interested in, and willing to carry even if the equivalent staffing level continues. out, general botanical recording across the county, than I am to carry out specific BSBI ‘The Trump development has been scarring the surveys. The latter, involve more time and Menie coast, though some good habitat remains. expense than I sometimes am comfortable with. There`s been plenty of publicity, with It also feels like work. resignations or sackings of Trump staff, arrests of two filmmakers working on a documentary for ‘In the last couple of year 7,765 records of 734 Channel 4, and the stout resistance of some taxa were made, entered to Mapmate and householders who still refuse to sell out to synched to BSBI. 99% of these records were Donald. made by Andy Amphlett & Ian Green. 89% of total records (and 100% of Andy’s records) had ‘Robert Gordon`s University (Aberdeen`s junior site grid references at minimum 6 figure one) decided to give Trump an honorary degree, resolution. Few might guess that the species with but this was so controversial that the time for the the most records (82) was Alchemilla glabra . I ceremony was not announced and enquiries were was very surprised myself. stonewalled. I went early, and saw the man arrive before most of the media came. Which meant he ‘Two new natives were recorded, Polypodium was able to boast to the diligent BBC team that ×mantoniae and Utricularia australis . New the opposition was reduced to one man and a aliens of interest included Chenopodium dog. But the presence of eight large muscular polyspermum , Lemna minuta and Trifolium men whose speech was American betrayed resupinatum . A Checklist for the county was Donald`s anxiety, As more TV crews arrived, compiled, including a list of axiophytes and a there came also some Tripping-up-Trump leaders Rare Plant Register checklist was compiled. Alex in a van. This carried some 50,000 copies of a created a v.c. 94 web page in January 2010. newspaper being conveyed from printers to the These two documents are available for download Aberdeen post office for delivery to local from there. Also written and published on the households, and with youthful naivety got parked web page were several species accounts and next to the bouncers` vehicles. In the scrum they maps showing distribution of records. Several never suspected. threatened plant project sites surveyed, but I continue to be rubbish at returning any forms … ‘Another conservation issue has been the steering of a planned long-distance footpath around ‘From the outset, I have wanted the recording I flushes that hold the best local population of do to be useful to others. I also wanted BSBI to whorled caraway Carum verticillatum , a rare be acknowledged as a data supplier. With that in species in eastern Scotland. Finds of new species mind, in November 2007 I signed a data sharing have been more of incomers than natives. A one- agreement with my LRC (NESBReC). Three day opening of Inchmarlo House near Banchory years on the outcomes have been rather one- allowed me to explore the policies, in which I sided, having supplied c.80 000 records to them, was surprised to find Acaena ovalifolium and and received just c.9 000 in return. The major Tropaeolum speciosum rampant, and some nicely body of detailed new survey data, which is what displaying Matteuccia struthiopteris . Another I was after from the outset, remains unavailable. shock was at a high-lying new plantation near Jim McIntosh has been trying to exert some Wells of Ythan where two Southern England gentle pressure on them to fulfil their part of the brambles, Rubus cardiophyllus and Rubus agreement, but there is no real evidence of any surrejanus , had become well established next to progress. A disappointing and frustrating edge planting of amenity deciduous trees.’ situation, in which I feel the LRC is taking advantage of me personally and of BSBI. So Andy Amphlett ( Banffshire , v.c. 94) says, ‘I regrettably I am supplying no further data to think BSBI needs to investigate sources of them until the situation is resolved. funding so as to at least contribute something towards travel costs of those engaged in plant ‘I found the over-hasty rush to adopt Stace 3 recording for specific projects, e.g. Local Change names rather annoying. Reasons are: it is not the or TPP. Where there are only one or two active only authoritative source of names, and does not

34 cover all taxa; contrary to some statements, Forsa area on Mull later in the year, as this was names will continue to change for a variety of an area not explored recently. Gordon Rothero reasons, so Stace 3 is not the last word. Interested and I ascended some of the eastern hills, locating users of BSBI resources e.g. the excellent Atlas strong populations of Minuartia sedoides , which web pages, may be put off by not being able to is declining on Mull. Other species found in this find the maps they want as there is no synonymy area were Cryptogramma crispa , Persicaria provided. And Stace 3 is so expensive. By vivipara , Cystopteris fragilis , Luzula spicata and keeping on about moving to this latest, and no Salix herbacea , none of which are particularly doubt transient “last word on species names” we common on the island. In the valley, Mark and make BSBI seem unnecessarily elitist. There Clare Kitchen found a new spot for Hammarbya have been a few other frustrations this year, but I paludosa , and lots of Teesdalia nudicaulis on the won’t go on!’ river gravels, confirming its old sites. I would like to thank those people who have helped In the Mid Ebudes (v.c. 103) Lynne Farrell during 2010- we have had some excellent finds found that ‘only 2 of the TPP species selected for between us.’ 2010 occurred in the v.c., Chrysanthemum segetum (as it was in 2009 when the list came Brian Ballinger submitted a report on Easter round), and Polystichum lonchitis . I was asked to Ross (v.c. 106) for 2010 on behalf of himself and update the C. segetum records for Tiree, which his wife, Barbara. ‘This was a difficult year we did on the BSBI field meeting held there in because of Barbara’s illness and subsequent 2009, but my island reporter also added more death from cancer in October. Nevertheless we records in 2010. There are no recent records for managed to fit in quite a lot of botanical P. lonchitis and the only previous records in the recording in the new date class, concentrating on Flora (1972) are from Ardmeanach peninsula and the more easily accessible sites. We were pleased Ben More, of which both areas have been to able to take part in a repeat of the Kyle of surveyed in detail over the past 15 years, so an Sutherland Site Condition Monitoring together even more diligent search will need to be with Mary Dean, confirming the presence of the undertaken to see whether the species is extant. very large population of Carex recta and re- finding Pilularia globulifera in all its previous ‘Tetrad recording continued mainly from May unusual estuarine sites. We managed to lead until Sept with a total of 43 previously unvisited some field trips for other societies and, with tetrads being recorded, more than in any other some help from other members, got round most previous year since 1995, when I took over as of the rather demanding threatened plant sites, VCR. It must be something to do with being although one Sibbaldia procumbens location retired! There are now only 37 tetrads left to awaits a visit. visit- will I be able to survey them all in 2011? ‘We produced both a website and a printed ‘There were some extremely good finds on Mull, version of our v.c. 106 Plant Checklist with the Coll and Tiree. Claudia Ferguson-Smyth on aim of updating it regularly. We also developed a Tiree valiantly tackled Taraxacum with John tentative first version of an axiophyte list. I have Richards’s help. David Pearman continued his agreed to continue as recorder and have just trips to the excellent Coll hotel under the guise of finished entering the 2010 Mapmate data. Now I recording more trees on the island- sounds like a am sole recorder I will also need to work on good excuse to me. On Mull several good some of my skills.’ records were made by botanists on family holidays. Rob Corner finding Carex disticha in reland the north near Glengorm, in a tetrad I was to visit In Co. Waterford (v.c. H6) Paul Green just one week later. Anand Prasad, who lives in ‘did a short talk on the local Waterford the NW part, found Lathyrus japonicus at radio station in April in Dungarvan on Carsiag- the nearest site in UK being in Donegal, I edibleI plants found growing wild in the county. Ireland. He also checked and relocated While there Gnaphhalium luteoabum was found Vaccinium oxycoccos at its only known site, after in pavement cracks, last recorded from I fell down a hidden hole and could not walk for Dungarvan in 2001. Also in 2010 Mycelis several weeks. muralis turned up on walls in the town. It was ‘I did, of course, manage to find some good found on a road verge on the edge of the town in records myself, and concentrated on the Glen 2005 where it had come in with a grass seed mix.

35

It goes to show how plants can take hold and the Damian to incorporate records for all hectads that damage sowing of non-native grass seed include any Tyrone territory. This is with mixtures can cause. The only new county record agreement from the recorders in neighbouring in 2010 was the finding of Diphasiastrum counties. alpinum in the Comeragh Mountains by Jenni ‘As I am constantly amending older records, Roche.’ some pre-2000 records may have changed from Meanwhile, in Co. Wexford (v.c. H12), he the earlier download sent to you two or three continues: ‘there were many good records made years ago. Most of these changes might be during 2010. Trifolium glomeratum from lawns improvements in knowledge. Possibly a few of a sports centre at Rosslare was the first completely new entries from earlier eras. I think I reported record in the area since it was found have apologised before for the quality of the pre- there in 1897 by E.S. Marshall. Conyza 2000 Tyrone records. I was very conscious, bonariensis at Rosslare Harbour was a new perhaps overly so, that I should avoid county record. Here it was growing with overloading the system. I opted for a system that C. canadensis , C. floribunda and C. sumatrensis . recorded common plants at 5km x 5km level. Seeing all four Conyza growing together You may notice that in recent years I have certainly has made it easier now to see the altered my approach so that most plants are now differences and ‘jizz’ of each. Conyza floribunda entered with 4 fig. grid refs. As they stand, the × Erigeron acris from an old lime working on Tyrone records should map satisfactorily at the edge of New Ross, found by Jenny hectad level, but will give a strange result at Seawright, is according to Clive Stace a new tetrad or monad level.’ hybrid to science. Bromopsis inermis established on a road verge at Holmestown where it was sown with a wild flower seed mix in 2007 was a new county record and Pimpinella peregrina from the same site is the first record for Ireland. eferees ‘A red flowered Potentilla found on the side of a Geoffrey Kitchener, referee for forest track took some time to identify. The Epilobium and Rumex , reports: internet came to my rescue. I scrolled down a Rduring 2010 three requests for Rdetermination of Epilobium large list of Potentilla photos until I found red coloured flowering plants and came to the specimens and one for Rumex were received. I conclusion that it was P. nepalensis . Later in the also made field records for hybrids in each genus year I saw it labelled in a botanic garden, very in v.cc. 15 and 16, and for Epilobium hybrids in pleased the internet had given the correct answer. v.cc. 2 and 38. A database of Epilobium hybrid records continues to be maintained. The most ‘I gave up the idea of filling in forms for Corn interesting material was a package of seedlings Marigolds for the Threatened Plants Projects, as of a willowherb abundant in the Colchester area 2010 seemed to be the Year of the Corn which on maturity were identified as Epilobium Marigold in Co. Wexford, turning many brachycarpum , a North American taxon cultivated fields yellow. If I had been given a spreading in mainland Europe and new to the Euro for each Corn Marigold I saw I could have British Isles. taken early retirement.’ Rose Murphy is actively seeking specimens of Ian McNeill, in Co. Tyrone (v.c. H36), writes Oenothera , especially anything unusual, as she is about a familiar issue: ‘Damian McFerran has working on a mini-Handbook of this genus. recently sent the latest version of the Tyrone Dried specimens are not always useful, botany database, including the complete record apparently, so do contact Rose if you have for 2000-2009. In view of the fact that hectads anything potentially interesting and send a fresh are still the principal publishing unit, I asked piece if required.

36

Some British habitats of Astragalus danicus : from left to right, cliff-top grassland Dowlaw Dean, Berwickshire (photograph © Michael Braithwaite); short limestone grassland, Lime Roach Hills SSSI, Mid-west Yorkshire (photograph ©Kevin Walker); basic rock outcrops, Tiree, Mid-Ebudes (photograph © Lynne Farrell); Bulford Ranges, Salisbury Plain MoD Training Area (photograph ©Sharon Pilkington).

37